Bibliographic record
Abstract
La tinta con que se escribió el Protocolo de Montreal todavía no se había secado cuando la ciencia que se ocupaba del ozono fue atacada** por corrupta y políticamente motivada, más o menos de la misma manera que hoy es atacada la ciencia ambiental. En 1995, la congresista republicana Dana Rohrabacher organizó un encuentro sobre "integridad científica" con la intención de desafiar a esa ciencia. Representantes de la industria privada y de laboratorios de ideas conservadores empezaron a manifestar que la ciencia que estaba detrás del Protocolo de Montreal era incorrecta, que resolver el problema sería devastador para la economía y que los científicos involucrados en eso estaba exagerando la amenaza para conseguir más dinero para sus investigaciones. El hoy tan conocido reclamo de que "no existía un consenso científico" –que pocas semanas más tarde mostró su completa falsedad con la concesión del premio Nobel a Rowland y Molina– en relación con la disminución del ozono fue incorporado en el Registro del Congreso.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".